Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

cervesaebraciator writes "U.S. Representative Judy Chu (D-CA) will be starting a new caucus with the ostensible purpose of protecting the intellectual property rights of filmmakers, musicians and other artists. The new caucus, styled the Congressional Creative Rights Caucus, will be formed along with Rep. Howard Coble (R-NC). Chu's office released a statement, including the following: 'American innovation hinges on creativity – it is what allows our kids to dream big and our artists to create works that inspire us all. The jobs that result are thanks entirely to our willingness to foster creative talent, and an environment where it can thrive and prosper. [...] The Congressional Creative Rights Caucus will serve to educate Members of Congress and the general public about the importance of preserving and protecting the rights of the creative community in the U.S. American creators of motion pictures, music, software and other creative works rely on Congress to protect their copyrights, human rights, First Amendment rights and property rights.'"

Meanwhile, the people are educated by the people who are vastly not fooled.Unfortunately, these are the same people who also know the corruption of government, the lies of the media, that taxes buy votes, that marijuana is safe,that guns don't kill people, that doctors do kill people, the lottery is an idiot tax, the war is over corporate interests, black is not white, etc...

But , it just doesn't matter, because the government will always tip to those who fill their individual retirement funds and promote their continued office.

Tired of voting Repubmocrat tyranny yet or do we vote for business as usual next time? Are you one of the educated or just another drone that is part of the problem?

This post makes little to no sense. It reminds me of TimeCube. Way to sprinkle in the correct phrases to get modded up. Maybe you had a point, but the only thing I got out of it is that people will mod up incoherent posts if they can catch just a single phrase or word that aligns with their worldview. Let's test out this theory:

FUCK COPYRIGHT!

Just so you know, I'm not accusing you of being an idiot or anything. I just think you failed to clarify and support your point.

On/. I have the expectation that a certain percentage are cognizant enough to " get it" without paragraphs of explanations and an outline, in order to resonate.This is my target audience for discussion.

Nope, just the things that came to mind in the time of the post. Others realize police are easily corruptible while the dronesong hums the virtues of heroes, some know the media to be mostly propaganda and crap for political or corporate interests, others were told it was the information to guide their decisions by, day to day and you know what? They're happy with that.

I find that most peoples lives are so busy and complex that they just don't have the will or strength to see anything bad about the world ar

Decisions betray the belief that in spite of astronomical odds the ticket will be the one to send them to retirement and riches, every day/ week, for months, years, decades. It is a self imposed tax for irrational belief, sponsored by the state who profits. Ergo, it is an idiot tax. Affordability only enhances misjudgment of reward for a a more lurid picture. I'm not against the lottery either, it offsets the tax burden for those smart enough not to participate.

Decisions betray the belief that in spite of astronomical odds the ticket will be the one to send them to retirement and riches, every day/ week, for months, years, decades. It is a self imposed tax for irrational belief, sponsored by the state who profits. Ergo, it is an idiot tax.

It's entertainment, same as buying darts at the county fair stall. Saying it's nothing more than an "idiot tax" greatly oversimplifies the issue, just like "marijuana is safe" is a great oversimplification, "the media lies" is so general and oversimplified as to be a useless statement, etcetc. It just detracts from any meaningful discussion.

Buying darts at a county fair stall with the impression that you will win the " big teddy bear" is a sucker bet as well.By your definition, entertainment could be sticking a fork in an electric socket.It is an idiot tax in that it is a state sponsored collection of money from those too stupid to do the math, nothing general about that, pretty specific. Sticking a fork in an electric socket will be a " sure thing" every time and takes no more brains than buying a lottery ticket.

Every time, again and again, this video [vimeo.com] becomes more and more of a reality. It's a good thing that as a matter of happenstance the creators used the UK as the operating theater. The rest of Europe will be moving the other way.

Amen .It would be quite nice to see only individuals funding parties and to a max of say 100 bucks each and make things even.Wonder how long the GOP would last loosing it's corporate funding with only the people funding them,the citizens.Sounds like a war on the US citizens is raging on . i'm happy not to live there.

Whilst I agree with your sentiments, the Democrats aren't really any much better. After all, which president was it that started killing Americans unconstitutionally? Oh yes, that would be a Democrat. At least the Democrats *say* they want to return to a slightly more reasonable tax regime in order to try and balance the books.

Indeed, keeping it on topic with the story, isn't Judy Chu a Democrat? Do you really think this Congressional Creative Rights Caucus will do anything to protect the other half of the Intellectual Property rights - the Public Domain? I seriously doubt it.

At least the Democrats *say* they want to return to a slightly more reasonable tax regime in order to try and balance the books.

Republican *say* they want to return to a slightly more reasonable tax regime, too. The problem is that neither actually do. One is "kill tax loopholes and reduce spending", both of which are legitimate ideas depending on where they're implemented, the other is "spend more to promote economic growth and increase taxes", which, depending on how it's implemented, also makes sense.

If it weren't all bullshit political posturing, where two enemies were trying to preserve their voting records for reference in fut

Considering the caucus is sponsored by both a Democrat and a Republican, this demonstrates more of a talent for noticing the obvious, not insight. And the stuff about killing American citizens is pretty much off-topic.

On the other hand, if 90% of people try to turn this into a partisan debate, even though it has both D and R members, maybe it's not so obvious to the illiteratti after all.

IP is ultimately a form of taxation and redistribution and as such it contributes to the general cost level of the economy. Saying that IPR is needed because the jobs are the only ones that don't get outsourced to cheaper countries is equivalent to saying that we need higher taxes to pay for government jobs that are the only ones that don't get oursourced.

IPR simply makes an economy less competitive and is part of the reason why everything is too expensive to do in the west.

And frankly I can't see any reason why blockbuster couldn't trivially be outsourced. The script for most films could probably be written by, eh, a script. Effects can certianly be done anywhere and I really doubt actors will last beyond the decade before they start getting replaced by rendered versions.

If that's the case, what are you doing making posts on/.? Start hacking some Python and become a billionaire. Or maybe you should watch something other than Michael Bay films -- a script won't replicate the talent of Charlie Kaufman or William Goldman.

When it comes to the IP issue, it's neither taxation nor redistribution. Patents, copyrights, and trademarks aren't necessarily detrimental to the economy; I would argue that they all have value. It's the implementation that's all screwy in this country. Pate

You can't make a Hollywood blockbuster in China or India or South Africa, you can't outsource new music to India...

Yet.

CG technology is approaching full photo realism, including for simulated human actors. Voice simulation too is advancing enormously, just look at the most recent generation of the Vocaloid software line in Japan. In a few years all the pieces will be in place for any small CG studio in the world to produce entirely virtual Hollywood-level blockbusters indistinguishable from any "real" production. They won't be able to use the likeness of currently living famous actors, at least not if they plan to release in the US, but add a few more years of well crafted virtual actors reappearing and forging brand awareness and even that will be a moot point.

Unless Hollywood discovers a way to out-innovate technological advances its prominence, a result mostly of the outrageous costs of state-of-the-art film making that so far only it could manage to fund, is a decline in the waiting.

We'll see. We've been hearing that for a LONG time now and it always seems to be "just around the corner." Good CG takes manpower, 'indistinguishable CG" takes ridiculous amounts of manpower and time, and the very best effects films use a blend of CG touching up traditional physical effects.

Every CG-human film I've ever seen has had what I'd considered "bad CG effects." They're noticeable, they really detract, and I usually end up wishing they'd filmed actual people.

We've been hearing that for a LONG time now and it always seems to be "just around the corner."

No, not around the corner. This follows more or less Moore's Law. I don't remember the exact figures, but I remember one or two years ago reading someone had calculated the amount of time needed for we to reach full high-definition real-time photo-realistic 3D CG to be on the order of 14 to 22 years. I don't know about speech synthesis, but that time frame allows for tons of tweaking on emotional responses, not to mention other improvements. Then it'll be a matter of having easier and easier tools being dev

um, first off music can be made anywhere, All you need is a studio and the hardware. Both are getting cheaper by the day. They will be posted on you-tube and the like. Movies like a blockbuster are going to take awhile, but not forever. The tv shows are dying off, and you tube is taking over as well. They intelligent and creatives are making videos and getting money from these. They have the ability to be sponsored by commercial entities like PBS or CBS or who ever. Its the perfect medium to get your

Bingo. I was hoping that, even after seeing "(D-CA)", this would be someone talking about making IP laws sane.

Nope.

This is all about "strengthening" them because they're "ineffective."

Really all you need to know is this bit from Rep. Chu's own press release:

The motion picture industry has a strong economic presence in Rep. Chu's current district. According to the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), $437 million is paid by their member studios to local businesses, and almost 140,000 jobs are in direct film and television in Los Angeles County.

They are ineffective. And the only way to make them effective in the age of the internet is to make them draconian. You can't hope to enforce a law against a crime so trivial to commit and commonplace if you need to worry about things like proof, verified evidence, a fair hearing or all the other things usually seen as legal rights. Just like you can't hope to stop people shareing memory sticks full of music with their friends unless you ban the technology to make those copies, or at least impose a penalty far out of proportion so you can ruin a few lives as examples to the rest of the population. That is the price of effective copyright, and I'm not willing to pay it.

But really, the difference between these two parties is pretty cosmetic.

Actually, I was more focused on the "CA" part of "D-CA" than the "D" - since, as you point out, it's the state that the politician's from that determines which company they serve. D or R, if it's "CA," that means "film/record industry." TX would mean oil, and NY means finance.

If it were anything other than a D or R that might mean something, but D or R, you're never going to hear any politician from CA interested in useful IP reform.

True, but the voters are the ones to blame for this. Lobbyists can promote candidates, but they can't vote for them.

I want to stress, by the way, that this isn't a republican or democrat thing and I'd hope to nip those blame games in the bud. The problem here is people not bothering to look at who they vote for. Among things that people vote for are this: whether it's a D or an R next to their name, whether or not their friends are voting for them, whether or not they like their appearance, or most recently the color of their skin (seriously, my sister voted for no reason other than she thought it would be good to have a black president.)

If any of you have ever seen v for vendetta, he paints equal blame for an oppressive government on the citizens themselves. And that is exactly the thing - we're basically reaping what we've sown. And please, for gods sakes, don't go around telling people who they should vote for either. Tell them to either think for themselves about what they are voting for, or else do everybody else a favor and don't vote at all.

If you want proof of this, just read slashdot. Not the articles, but the comments. It's pretty hard to find a liberal that is in favor of gun control, yet still they vote in droves for politicians who are in favor of gun control. It's hard to find a conservative that is in favor of big government, yet they still vote in droves for politicians that are in favor of big government. Quit voting for the god damn letter, and always second guess those advertisements that e.g. say Joe the politician voted against education funding when in reality the bill he voted against was aimed at something else entirely, but had education as an earmark.

I want to stress, by the way, that this isn't a republican or democrat thing and I'd hope to nip those blame games in the bud.

Absolutely, it's not a Democrat thing nor a Republican thing. What it is is an entrenched corruption thing. For instance, a freshman congressman can show up bright-eyed and bushy-tailed for their first session, ready to debate the issues of the day, and will promptly find out that their own party leadership (who controls the agenda) will ignore them unless they raise $5 million for the party's congressional campaign fund. If they don't play the game, they don't get any kind of serious say in what's going on, and are doomed to life as a backbencher who's bills never make it into a committee hearing, much less a floor vote, and all the federal pork will move out of their district (creating unemployment), until they either give up and decide not to run again, or play ball.

That's the game in Washington, and everyone is playing it, except possibly Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Angus King (I-ME). For those of you wondering why I left out Joe Lieberman (I-CT), it's because he may be nominally independent, but he's a major fundraiser for the Democrats, so they protect him from even the primary voters from Connecticut.

It doesn't matter who is voted into office, what matters is who is willing to pay for the campaign. It takes money to run for Congress and these creatures are acting no differently than their predecessors or successors.

It takes a small number of people with a strong vested interest to fund a campaign when the opposition is not willing to fund an counter campaign. To wit

Judy Chu, a Democrat, [opensecrets.org] has raised $80,000 from people, pacs and companies associated with the movie industry.

If you want proof of this, just read slashdot. Not the articles, but the comments. It's pretty hard to find a liberal that is in favor of gun control, yet still they vote in droves for politicians who are in favor of gun control. It's hard to find a conservative that is in favor of big government, yet they still vote in droves for politicians that are in favor of big government.

That's because we don't have politicians for single issues (usually). Instead, when voting, we have to decide the following: Do I want to vote for candidate 1 whom I agree with on issue X and Y, but disagree on Z, or do I vote for candidate 2 whom I agree with on Y and Z but disagree with his position on X? You'll almost never find someone whom you agree with all the time, always you'll have to choose someone who -best- represents your interests, not perfectly represents them. If I vote in candidate 2, doe

And good films. However, it is only possible to make money on those when people in other industries are employed and have disposable income. These jobs are secondary effects of others having money to spend on them. It is maslow's hierarchy of needs, if everyone else is broke they can't and won't buy the media. Some will turn to piracy and some will just do without. You can't create jobs or support an economy with a circle of media industry workers buying each others stuff. By necessity there needs to be other people involved. If the law makers wanted to help, they would work on improving the economy. With more disposable income in the hands of the masses, media sales would increase. If the media industry wanted to help they could improve the quality of their product and/or lower prices (I feel like there is not nearly as many good movies any more, but maybe it is just because I am getting older). While "strengthening" the IP protections of artists may prevent some people from pirating media, I don't think this is the big problem. I'm not sure I know any adults in the work force that pirate stuff. Most just buy the things that they think are worth the price and don't bother with the other stuff.

Nowhere in the US Constitution does it equate protections of rights pertaining to intellectual works as "property".

The term "property" implies that it can be sold, that it can be inherited, that it can be owned - and owned by non-persons at that. Nowhere does the Constitution say these things, nor does it even use the term "property" in this context.

Rather, it says that Congress shall have the power "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." And that is all it says on the matter.

Note that it says "Authors and Inventors". It does not say businesses: if it had meant to include businesses, it would have said so, but the Constitution starts out with "We the People", and it is about the rights of people and the powers and limitations of government over those people (much less corporations or unions, which are not people: a group of persons is not a person any more than a human body is a cell). And note that the Constitution uses the term "exclusive Right": it does not use the term "property". A right is akin to a lease. It is not ownership of the object in question. Thus, in the term "intellectual property", the "property" is merely a lease of sorts granted to Authors and Inventors (people) - for a limited time. That does not automatically imply inheritance to me, nor does it automatically imply that it can be bought and sold as we assume that property can: those are extrapolations of the "rights" intended and we should question those extrapolations and not take them for granted: do they actually promote science and the useful arts? I therefore think that the term "intellectual property" implies extrapolations that might not have been intended.

Copyright and patent law (these terms are also not in the Constitution) have made huge leaps beyond what the Constitution intended. That is why we are off track.

And yet we live in a world where every artist / writer / collective CAN have their own publishing company and it is trivial to set up. The cost of distribution is nearly zero, the cost of transaction is the same as any business and again trivial. The cost of marketing is probably the biggest expense and time consumer.

Creative people don't need publishers, they just need good PR. They don't need to sell their copyrights for that. There is no need to allow businesses to own copyrights.

> And yet we live in a world where every artist / writer / collective CAN have their own publishing company and it is trivial to set up.

Sure, they can do that, which is a really cool thing. However back in 1787 the problems of being a publisher were much more severe. Ben Franklin had all kinds of issues publishing his periodicals, including such basic things like there being an extremely limited supply of paper in the US. The history of RittenhouseTown is pretty interesting if you are interested.

> No ownership required. The copyright holder would simply hire a publisher to print his works and pay them their fee, he would then be free to sell his works for whatever he could get for them. If he is popular enough he gets rich, if his works suck he goes out of business. That's the American way.

That still forces the author to put down his typewriter and run a distributions and sales enterprise. Sorry, but it's not acceptable to force this sort of structure.

Your idea of what the regime should be is pretty irrelevant. The US has one justificatoin that legally allows them to enforce the notion of a copyright. Does it increase creatitivty? If not then all of your crowing is irrelevant.

Despite the fact that some of the Supremes mirror your ideology, the laws of the United States don't exist to make sure that corporations can make money don't particular things.

And since I think you are being ironic, I think you will agree that that is part of the point I am making. The Constitution is about the powers of government over people, and the rights of people. Nowhere does it say "business" or "corporation". (I believe that corporations of sorts did exist at that time, especially in Europe, although US corporate law was still someone non-existent I believe but I could be wrong.) Regardless, the assumption that the Constitution's provision "...securing for limited Times

I agree. This is why when I submitted the article I put the term "intellectual property" in quotes. This did not survive the editorial process but I suppose one can't complain. We are, whether we like it or not, compelled to use this dreadful term if for no other reason than to identify it as a problematic concept. "(Thus the age perfects its clench.)"

My favorite thing about the press release, however, was the name of the caucus. "Creative Rights". Who can argue with creative rights? Rights is a trump card

Nowhere in the US Constitution does it equate protections of rights pertaining to intellectual works as "property".

There is a LOT of things the Constitution does not enumerate or spell out or define. That doesn't mean much.
As you point out the Constitution offers Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right... And there is an implication that the Author and Inventor can transfer that right, otherwise what is the point of having an exclusive right? Note that it also refers to Authors and Inventors, it doesn't refer to people or corporations or groups, or anything. Just "Author" and "Inventor."

'chrismcb', you wrote, "Note that it also refers to Authors and Inventors, it doesn't refer to people or corporations or groups, or anything. Just 'Author' and 'Inventor.' "

But the Constitution starts out with "We the People..."

I think that if we continue down the road of imputing personhood to every kind of grouping of persons, then we are in big trouble; and I think that if we continue down the road of conferring the rights that people have to every kind of grouping of persons, then we are in even bigger

Do they realize that 99% of theses rules that corporations want will hurt artists, creators, etc. The record companies want to bring back the days where they can sell a million records and the band hardly gets enough money to buy a new van.

A great but typical example of this would be the guy who wrote the book, "Nature of Code"(great book) he now gives people the option of buying his book online for a price you choose ranging from 0-10 dollars. Other than the transaction fee he gets 100% of the money resulting in his getting up to triple as much as he did when his previous book sold through a traditional publisher while the consumer gets it for 1/5th as much.

I don't see any need to protect the traditional publisher one iota. If any new laws are needed they should be there to protect the little guy from the traditional publisher. But in this day of big money politics politicians aren't there anymore for the voter. If anything they seem annoyed when voters get their own act together and boot them out.

In the past, America's greatness was a result of its vast natural resources. While those resources remain, they no longer seem so endless and are becoming increasingly hard to tap into, due to NIMBY syndrome and other factors. It is easier to look outside our own borders and take what we need from other nations, regardless of the cost in lives to the natives of those lands.

In the past, America was great because it was open to new ideas. Its not that it necessarily had more ideas than anyone else, but a less rigid class-system - supported by a vast frontier that allowed anyone daring enough to remake themselves - fostered an environment where even the wackiest ideas could be considered... and some of those ideas bore fruit. But now, rich and wealthy, the nation is becoming increasingly conservative and close-minded to anything that might jeopardize the security of that wealth.

In the past, America's manufacturing might was bolstered by a motivated workforce. The country was the factory of the world. But as cost-of-living increased, it became cheaper for all those jobs to migrate to other nations, and now whole cities once dedicated to industry lie in ruins.

In the past, America was breadbasket to the world. More than just feeding ourselves, our fruits and grains were shipped out to the starving nations of the world. Now, thanks to plummeting shipping costs, it is oft-times cheaper to grow those plants in far-off lands and ship them back into the country. Meanwhile its heartlands become increasingly less productive from decades of overproduction and over-fertilization.

In the past, America's strength was its highly-educated technicians and scientists, who created electronic marvels that changed the world. But now, these marvels have become commonplace, we sell our know-how to our erstwhile allies, and educate its own rivals. Meanwhile, its own children falter at the most basic tasks because their own education is hampered by backwards-looking fanatics.

In the past, America was a noble beacon to the world, a land of opportunity and freedom. People thronged to America's shores, bringing with them their vitality and industry and bettering their adopted country with their skills. Today, that beacon is guttering as opportunity fades due to an increasingly classist society within the nation's borders, and unilateral actions without. If people come to the country, it is only to take what they can from the nation - education, resources, technology - before returning to their homelands, which reap the benefits.

Why do American politicians and industrialists focus so much on IP law? Because, more and more, it is the only advantage the country has left! For one hundred years, America used its strengths to build up a huge war-chest of patents, copyrights and trademarks as one method to protect its interests. However, over the past few decades, other nations - China, India, Mexico, just to name a few - have stepped up to the plate and matched America in industrial output. America depends heavily on resources from other nations to keep its own faltering engine running. Its own workforce is no longer as competitive when compared to those in erstwhile "third world nations". Short-sighted politics squandered many other of its advantages. Those patents, copyrights and trademarks - once just a single weapon in its arsenal - are increasingly becoming America's/only/ strength.

Sadly, like SCO, America is becoming a patent troll (and IP troll in general), relying on draconian enforcement of ethereal "intellectual property", because it cannot otherwise compete. It will increasingly sacrifice all else - industry, Constitutional rights, political allies - in the vain hope that somehow this single weapon of IP law can be sharpened enough to cut itself out of the draconian knot of political missteps that have caused its current economic malaise.

Coble is well-known as Public Enemy #3 when it comes to copyright, with Mary Bono Mack being #2 and Howard Berman at #1. Fortunately for us, Mack and Berman both lost during the last election, but Coble is still a very dangerous man in this regard.

We can only hope that Zoe Lofgren will start a caucus in support of the rights of the public.

Right now, the MPAA, RIAA, and other organizations that represent artists have a difficult time figuring out to whom they should make political donations in order to protect artists' rights. 450+ representatives and 100 senators- that means a lot of money has to be spread far and wide in order to have the desired outcome. By forming and announcing the existence of a group dedicated specifically to protecting artists' rights, this group of senators has provided a focal point for the flow of donations, easing the burden on contributing organizations and leaving more money for the artists whose works are going to be protected.

The representatives should be applauded for their efforts to ensure that artists rights are protected and that there will be more money for those artists now that the lobbying groups will have to spend less to acquire that protection.

By forming and announcing the existence of a group dedicated specifically to protecting artists' rights, this group of senators has provided a focal point for the flow of donations, allowing the *AA to keep yet more of their ill gotten gains, whilst fucking over the artists whose works are going to be protected.

As long as the U.S. provides for the time tested tried and proven methods of letting people freely experiment with building on existing ideas and technology it will be just fine. Woe be the day though when artists and inventors have a say in which direction the next generations creator's choose to take their ideas, for that will be the death of innovation in this nation.

As long as the U.S. provides for the time tested tried and proven methods of letting people freely experiment with building on existing ideas and technology it will be just fine. Woe be the day though when artists and inventors have a say in which direction the next generations creator's choose to take their ideas, for that will be the death of innovation in this nation.

That day of woe is soon. Disney is lobbying Congress to allow the patenting of movies and songs, so if you want to make a movie which in any way uses any of the themes, settings, character types, or is suggestive in any way to a viewer of any aspect of a patented Disney film the Federal Copyright Bureau of Investigation will raid your set and cart you off.

Wow! This is what we needed. I'm so GLAD Congress has finally come to its senses and organized to protect the rights of a minority which has been so shortchanged and hard pressed. Next we really badly need a lobby for mega-yacht owners, they get such a raw deal.

Wow! This is what we needed. I'm so GLAD Congress has finally come to its senses and organized to protect the rights of a minority which has been so shortchanged and hard pressed. Next we really badly need a lobby for mega-yacht owners, they get such a raw deal.

The mega-yacht owners already have a group to protect them. It's a private union, though, your level of protection is determined by the amount of dues you pay under the table. That union is colloquially known as "congress".

Ahhhh, yeah, I wasn't sure how that worked. I've only made it to the 'life preserver' level of yacht ownership so far... Luckily we have something called the Coast Guard, just make sure they don't decide to sieze your property, lol.

Before Chu and Coble get too far into this propaganda exercise, they should educate themselves about the background for the culture they're presuming knowledge of:

If the terms of the Copyright Term Extension Act (CTEA) of 1998 were instead enacted in - say - 1920, a good portion of our current legacy of movies and music likely would not exist. Example: Walt Disney & company borrowed liberally from the works of the Brothers Grimm. If the brothers' estate had retained rights, would Walt been able to afford it? If the Grimm tales had become orphan works, with the rights holders unknown, would Walt have been able to proceed at all?

They know very well their "reforms" will hurt everyone but their corporate sponsors. Their only concern is to push it down everyone's throat by any means possible - cheats, lies, threats, bribes etc., so they'll get their money for next elections or at least some well paid jobs in one of corporations they "represent" in the Congress. Educating those two fucke is pointless excercise - the only possible outcome is that their lies and cheats will be more sophiscated. Educating people in their districts makes m

If the terms of the Copyright Term Extension Act (CTEA) of 1998 were instead enacted in - say - 1920, a good portion of our current legacy of movies and music likely would not exist.

But they weren't prevented from doing it back then, and that's all they care about. They don't care if current laws stifle progress, prevent works from entering the public domain, and cheat the public. All they care about is protecting existing rights-holders and their current libraries and protecting whatever they can currently make under the current regime. The "think of what works could be created if copyright lengths were sensible" argument is very nebulous, current executives and lawmakers will look ar

Sounds like our Congress has already been retrained to believe that copyright violations are a criminal matter to be prosecuted by the government rather than a civil disagreement to be adjudicated between private parties.

Yeah, I'm being obvious. But it got me thinking: What civil matters are the next to become criminal through lobbying by corporations?

MPAA, RIAA are just going to keep beating this dead horse and people are going to keep walking away from them. I've already stopped going to most movies, buying music that isn't indie and good and cut the cable cord. I'm not the only one.

I see music in particular heading in a new direction. Bands will become more popular via places like Youtube, etc and then use a kickstarter like site to raise funds to record an actual album. Touring live shows will bring in income and the music will be pretty much giv

I've been partaking in copyright legislation discussions on a sound engineering forum called Gearslutz. One opinion that seems to be spread with a considerably large amount of people on that board is the idea that copyright legislation is constantly on retreat and that the music industry is being bullied by masses of lobbyists from the tech-industry (Microsoft, Google, Apple) weakening copyright legislation and filling their own pockets with money made from p

That this is probably not about protecting the rights of artists, but extending the rights of corporations over the people. Next up, music copyrights taken over by companies because it is produced as work for hire, extension of copyright terms for "limited times" of 999 years, overrides to laws of first sale, increased use of trade marks to block copyright expiry etc.

This looks like the first salvo in the upcoming "Mickey's Law" that is expected when the copyright on Mickey Mouse again comes up for expiration (2018, I think). 5 years is about the right time-frame for the caucus to establish itself and starting putting out "studies" showing how beneficial extended copyright is.

Meanwhile, it's a nice big sign to the world saying "Hey Hollywood and patent trolls, we want your money!"

The idea that art as a business requires risk is just not something they can handle. This is why corporate mergers are so problematic. You end up with large entities comparable to large governments. They don't really have a good sense of direction beyond immediate self preservation and petty self enrichment.

That's the value of a founder like Gates or Jobs. They give the beast a soul and some direction.

Indeed. The only information this story conveys is who got the latest cheque cut by the MafiAA. Surprising for the open-ness, I must say. It's not often you see confessions writ so large and so publicly. SOP; do it the stupidest way possible, stick your fingers in your ears, damn the torpedos, and sing "Lalalalalala..." as loudly as you can. Dummies.